Appeal No. 99-0638 Page 4
Application No. 08/679,023
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 12 through 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of
Hladky.
Claims 8 through 11, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Hladky
as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 12 through 15 above, and
further in view of Smith.4
The complete text of the examiner's rejections and
response to the argument presented by the appellants appears
in the answer (Paper No. 21, mailed March 2, 1998), while the
complete statement of the appellants' argument can be found in
the brief (Paper No. 20, filed December 8, 1997).
OPINION
4It is noted that the statement of the rejection of claim
17 in the final rejection (Paper No. 17) indicated that claim
17 is “unpatentable over Hladky et al. in view of Wolf et al.
as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 12-15 above, and further
in view of Smith.” From a review of the record, however, it
is readily apparent that the intended combination was Wolf in
view of Hladky, and further in view of Smith, as indicated on
page 5 of the answer. The appellants apparently are not
prejudiced by this interpretation since it is clear from the
brief that the appellants also understood this to be the
rejection intended (brief, page 7).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007